delete_friend

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '删除' signals a destructive mutation, but the description never states that the deletion is likely irreversible, whether it removes the friendship bilaterally, what permissions/auth are needed, or what happens if the user_id is not a friend. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence. The trailing ':param' docstring fragment is redundant with the schema but takes only a few words, so the description stays tight overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, annotation-free, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, success/failure behavior, and auth requirements. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The ':param user_id:' line merely restates the schema text verbatim, adding no format, range, or validation guidance (e.g., whether the QQ number must already be a friend). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('删除指定 QQ 好友') and identifies the underlying OneBot 11 action, so the agent knows exactly what mutation occurs. It does not differentiate itself from neighboring destructive siblings such as delete_group_file or delete_msg, but the target resource (friend) is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_friend_remark for editing rather than removing, or set_friend_add_request for handling requests). No prerequisites, no note about needing the friend to exist, and no mention of confirmation requirements for a destructive act.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.